1. United States
2. Ind.
3. Letter

I’m writing as a constituent regarding the SAVE Act currently under consideration in the Senate. I want to be clear in my position: I do not believe advancing this legislation, in its current form, is the right direction for our country. Election integrity is essential, and I strongly support policies that ensure only eligible citizens vote. However, those policies must be grounded in evidence and practical implementation. As written, the SAVE Act introduces requirements that risk doing more harm than good. Independent research shows that more than 21 million eligible American citizens, roughly 9 percent of the voting population, do not have ready access to documents like a passport or birth certificate that would be required under this bill. In addition, millions more would face delays, costs, or administrative hurdles to obtain or present those documents in time to participate in an election. (Brennan Center for Justice (https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/millions-americans-dont-have-documents-proving-their-citizenship-readily?utm_source=chatgpt.com)) At the same time, the bill would require a fundamental shift in how voter registration works in the United States. Today, the vast majority of Americans register through mail or online systems. Requiring in-person proof of citizenship would effectively dismantle those systems, creating bottlenecks, increasing costs for states, and placing significant new burdens on already stretched election officials. (Legal Defense Fund (https://www.naacpldf.org/case-issue/save-america-act-saves-no-one-voter-suppression-bill-explained/?utm_source=chatgpt.com)) This combination, millions of eligible voters facing new barriers and election systems absorbing substantial new complexity, risks slowing down registration, increasing errors, and ultimately undermining confidence in the process itself. What is most concerning is that these tradeoffs are being proposed in response to a problem that existing research consistently shows is extremely rare. In other words, this legislation introduces widespread friction into the system without clear evidence of a commensurate benefit. There is a better path. We should focus on targeted, evidence-based approaches that strengthen election security while preserving accessibility and efficiency, and that can earn durable, bipartisan support. For these reasons, I respectfully urge you not to support the SAVE Act in its current form and to instead advocate for solutions that protect both the integrity and accessibility of our elections. Thank you for your time and your service.